/m/hall_of_fame

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I've been enjoying this series by Pos. In re: Miller and Steinbrenner, I mentioned during one of the Papi Ortiz threads that I think that Ortiz should go into the HoF NOW, because of the historical importance of his career.

The HoF is many things, and one of its functions is to act as a history museum. In that sense, I would not be surprised if Miller and/or Steinbrenner are already there - but I would love it if they are also enshrined, due to their historical importance (for the record, I agreed with Pos' rationale vis-a-vis Tommy John, too).

And if some of you disagree with my vision of a HoF which does take historical importance into account, I deeply regret it, but that's how I see it (and yes, some lesser players with limited historical importance would be included in the HOF because of historical achievements and some better players which played in lesser markets would be regrettably excluded because of lack of accolades using this line of reasoning).

And if some of you disagree with my vision of a HoF which does take historical importance into account, I deeply regret it, but that's how I see it (and yes, some lesser players with limited historical importance would be included in the HOF because of historical achievements and some better players which played in lesser markets would be regrettably excluded because of lack of accolades using this line of reasoning).

And the fans of Don Larsen, Denny McLain, and Bobby Thomson rejoice...

I've been enjoying this series by Pos. In re: Miller and Steinbrenner, I mentioned during one of the Papi Ortiz threads that I think that Ortiz should go into the HoF NOW, because of the historical importance of his career.

What historical importance? A borderline hovg player who had a couple of big post season series..... Not sure there is any historical importance to it. He's not Jackie Robinson, he's not even Bruce Sutter as far as "historical" importance goes. He's a main cog of a very good team, that is pretty much it. Just because it happens to be Boston isn't any reason to attach some 'historical' significance to it.

I've been enjoying this series by Pos. In re: Miller and Steinbrenner, I mentioned during one of the Papi Ortiz threads that I think that Ortiz should go into the HoF NOW, because of the historical importance of his career.

Yikes. Anyway, that's why they have displays for historically important moments in the game - so they don't have to enshrine every Tom, Dick and Harry just because they did something historically important (ie, the Bobby Thomson's and Don Larsen's of the world). Ortiz may well go in at some point if he puts up a couple more good years, but it will be based on his career accomplishments, as it should be.

The HoF is many things, and one of its functions is to act as a history museum.

Yes, and it does that very well. It's officially called the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, after all. I think you're forgetting, though, that there's a difference between induction into the Hall and the memorialization of significant players and events in the museum.

What historical importance? A borderline hovg player who had a couple of big post season series..... Not sure there is any historical importance to it.

Like it or not, an awful lot of people, even people outside of NE, indeed believe that there is tons of historical significance to David Ortiz and his postseason heroics. And I'm sure the fact that Ortiz makes magic for the Red Sox, the team that waxed the Cards ass in 2004, and dispatched them again last week, has nothing to do with your stance.

3, Nope. I'm a Phillies fan (and in the AL, Yankees). And I don't much like Boston, FWIW (and I am DEFINITELY not a BoSox fan)

4, Right, because Ortiz's career is comparable with Larsen's, Denny McLain's and Bobby Thompson's. Jeez....

5, Breaking the Curse of the Bambino in 2004. 2007 and now, this Boston Strong team after what happened to Boston during the Marathon this year (to analogize, there's a reason why Utley in 2008 and Ortiz in 2013 were given some slate for their public lewdness: performance).

6, Right. But we're not talking about enshrining Napoli. And while I understand that he was a better player, I would much prefer to have Ortiz enshrined than Edgar Martínez (though both should be enshrined).

7, A-Rod's. What's your point?

8, I'm not forgetting it. I purposefully stated it: ".....and one of its functions is to act as a history museum. In that sense, I would not be surprised if Miller and/or Steinbrenner are already there".

10, Yes, I do. In addition to what is undoubtedly a HoVG career. And let's be clear: I don't expect most of you to agree with my vision of the HoF.

10, And let's be clear: I don't expect most of you to agree with my vision of the HoF.

You definitely pegged this one.

So Randy Johnson should have gone in immediately after the 2001 WS? Mariano - who knows how long ago?

Lou Brock & Bob Gibson right after their last WS? (What about Mickey Lolich in 1968?)

As for Miller & GS, I don't find the topic compelling at except to say that with respect to Steinbrenner, there is so much revisionist history going on here. He was an absolute a*****e for so much of his tenure. His legacy is in large part the fortuitous result of Stick Michael's judgement when he was banished.

12, nope. On their first year of eligibility (other than Lolich, who, 1968 WS notwithstanding, was not close enough to get in, just like Larsen, Bobby Thompson, etc. weren't good enough to get in even when allowing for their historical importance).

And I'm sure the fact that Ortiz makes magic for the Red Sox, the team that waxed the Cards ass in 2004, and dispatched them again last week, has nothing to do with your stance.

I hold no grudge against any team beating my team... I wish people would read what I post and not just look at my name and make assumptions because they are too stupid to read.

I'm fine with losing the world series, heck in 2004 I accepted the Red Sox as the clearly better team. I had no problem with this year either. I would prefer for my team to win, but I don't hold one bit of animosity towards the team that beat my team. (their fans on the other hand...) I just don't get this concept that there are people on the planet who actually hold emotional disdain towards a sports team, just because their team lost to them. I do not get that in one bit. It makes zero sense.

Ortiz is a borderline hovg player. I don't think there is a real argument that if he was hit by a bus today, that he is a hofer, and I'm not sure there is an argument that he is more deserving of the hof than say Beltran, or Edmonds or Dale Murphy etc. He just hasn't done enough. It has nothing to do with the team he played for, it has everything to do with his resume.

Folks, I used Ortiz as an example, not David Roberts.

But the point is that Ortiz isn't anything special. He's at best the third best DH of all time, in a field that basically includes six candidates(Ortiz, Edgar, Molitor, Baines, Giambi and of course Thomas) And saying he's the third best in that field is a stretch (I think Giambi and Molitor provided more value to their team than Ortiz did also)

I just don't see a strong argument for putting him in the hof, forget about an argument for "right now"....

Ortiz is a borderline hovg player. I don't think there is a real argument that if he was hit by a bus today, that he is a hofer,

Actually, if this were the case, he'd probably get in on the emotion of it, a la Clemente.

But absent Jason Schmidt's NY Times smear,

And why should the accusation be summarily dismissed? Because Ortiz huffed-and-puffed and said it wasn't so?

If you do eliminate the PED suspicion, there's no doubt that he has proven himself to be one of the greatest big-game players ever. Enough for the Hall? I believe those who perform best when it counts the most deserve a boost from that, not only an honorable mention after-thought. Personally, b/w the PED suspicion and the inability to play defense, he just misses for me.

The analogy from another thread holds. Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning precisely because he was tremendous on those big games, whereas Peyton has proven himself to be possibly the best regular season QB of all time.

The analogy from another thread holds. Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning precisely because he was tremendous on those big games, whereas Peyton has proven himself to be possibly the best regular season QB of all time.

Peyton is the greatest quarteback of all time. (Only Joe Montana is in the discussion) Brady is top ten all time, and has been surrounded by better teamates, and better coaches.

And why should the accusation be summarily dismissed? Because Ortiz huffed-and-puffed and said it wasn't so?

Innocent until proven guilty. I don't take the Piazza backne comments with a grain of salt, and neither should anyone take the backroom talk about Ortiz. He's clean until proven dirty. Simple as that (I understand people have different definitions of proven dirty of course, but one guy claiming to have seen his name on a list somewhere is not really that compelling of evidence)

If you do eliminate the PED suspicion, there's no doubt that he has proven himself to be one of the greatest big-game players ever. Enough for the Hall? I believe those who perform best when it counts the most deserve a boost from that, not a just some after-thought.

I don't have a problem with giving a boost to a players candidacy because of his big game performance, but at best, it's a boost of one MVP quality season(and that is stretching it...maybe an all star quality season) It's not something that takes a 44 war player into 55 war territory. (assuming you are using war as the be all, end all of a players hof resume...I'm just using it as short hand to refer relative quality of the players career, where most people agree 70+ war is hof, 55-70 is where the debates come in)

Enough for the Hall? I believe those who perform best when it counts the most deserve a boost from that, not only an honorable mention after-thought.

Why must it necessarily be seen that way? Why can't it be held against him that he can't produce on the post-season level during the regular season against a lower level of competition? If that is the case, and it almost always is in the long run when this clutch argument is made.

DH is a position. Since 2003, in his time, 11 seasons, Ortiz is the best at his position, no? Definition B HOF. The fact that his exploits in the PS have made him one of the most famous baseball players of his era matters.

Its the HOF, not the HOW. Narrative counts. The NL WS representative, after watching him devastate their corps of young power arms, finally just tossed in the towel, and BB'd him, they gave up. In the freakin WS.

DH is a position. Since 2003, in his time, 11 seasons, Ortiz is the best at his position, no? Definition B HOF. The fact that his exploits in the PS have made him one of the most famous baseball players of his era matters.

The Jack Morris definition of hofer... You can't base a hof case as being best at a position going strictly by the years that the player was good. You have to go out both about 5 years before and after to start making that case. And the second you do that. Giambi, Martinez and Thomas automatically beat him there. Add in Thome if you want, and then who knows who is going to be a great DH over the next five seasons.... Add in that in order for a DH to claim to be the best at his "positon" he needs to be the best hitter in the league...something Ortiz never has been.

He's not a hofer, not yet anyway. That is like arguing for best middle reliever in the game over the past decade or some other crap like that.

Its the HOF, not the HOW. Narrative counts.

Agreed....Just not sure how much difference it makes. As it stands Ortiz is CLEARLY not hof worthy. The narrative puts him in the discussion, but that discussion should go "Well he was pretty good, just too short of a career, lack of in season dominance, great post season numbers where he performed relatively comparable to his career numbers with some clutch performance in there, but he falls short."

And even if you are delusional enough to think he is hall worthy right now, there is nothing that makes him worthy of "Put him in today." status in any case. He's not Jackie Robinson, he's not even Carlos Beltran (who at least has a hof argument).

I know Red Sox fans are the most delusional fans on this site, but seriously...how can you argue for Ortiz without adding another 100+ hofers... I guess because they saw Jim Rice go in, that Red Sox fans think the standards of the hof should be dropped to that level(and Jim Rice is probably more worthy than Ortiz, at least he had a three year stretch where he was the best hitter in his league...something that the DH Ortiz never did)

edit: ok, it's possible from 2005-2007 Ortiz was the best hitter in the AL...although Arod is in that discussion.

during his career could you say this player is the best at his position in his league?

I understand that, it was mentioned either up thread or in the Bill James chat thread. I just don't see the standards for DH being the same as other real positions, since for the most part there are not 14/15 full time dh's like there are other positions. The standard for being the best DH rests on being the best hitter in the league, not the best player who happens to put up 82 games a year at DH.

If you want to claim "being the best DH." You better damn well have more than 16 points of black ink on your resume.

I'm all for recognizing a DH for the HOF,but it's a role, not a position. Saying Ortiz is the best at his position is disingenuous. Compare him to 1B, even using offense only, and it's clear he is far from the best at his position.

I didn't get a response from Ortiz supporters in the last thread, so I'll post my enormous comment again (it's a slightly polished version of post 94 here):

A mention was made earlier in the thread of Ortiz's postseason WPA. As it happens, I have a spreadsheet including every postseason game ever played (just updated for this World Series), with the WPA for every player involved. What's more, the data can be weighted for the importance of the individual game at the time - Game 7 of a Series gets a weight of 1.0; Game 6 of a Series or Game 7 of an LCS weights 0.5, and so on; adding it up with the weights applied gives you the hitter's total championship probability added.

By this measure, Ortiz's prolific performance in this World Series moves him into the top 10 postseason hitters of all time - he's at #7, with .637 championships added, just ahead of guys like Reggie, Yogi, and Pujols.

On the other hand, the #6 postseason hitter of all time is... Hal Smith. (If you don't remember Hal Smith, blame the Pirate bullpen and Bill Mazeroski for stealing his 1960 Game 7 thunder - but his home run was bigger, because the Pirates were behind at the time.) But postseason hero or not, nobody's arguing for a fringe catcher in the Hall of Fame, so he's not much of an Ortiz comp.

No, the best comparison comes in the form of the #3 postseason hitter of all time, who was conveniently mentioned upthread as having a similar regular season career to Ortiz's: Lance Berkman.

2001: 2/12 in an LDS loss. Bad score, but it's only an LDS, so it doesn't have a huge amount of weight.

2004: Killed the ball in the LDS (.409/.480/.591); hit "only" .292/.400/.750 while Pujols and Beltran were staging an all-time great hitting showdown in the LCS. Solid overall, but still below even for his career to this point.

2005: Killed the ball in the LDS again (.357/.500/.643). Cooled off some in the NLCS, but in Game 5, came to the plate with two men on and the Astros down a run in the seventh, and homered to give his team a 4-2 lead in a game that, if won, would clinch their first-ever NL pennant. Pujols hit the ball over the train tracks 2 innings later, which is all anyone remembers from that game, but the Astros won the pennant anyway two days later.

That brings us to the '05 World Series. Berkman hit .385/.526/.538, and even that undersells his production. In Game 1, he had a game-tying 2-run double in the third. In Game 3, he tied the game with a third-inning sac fly, then hit a 2-run double two innings later to put them ahead. And in Game 3, he brought in the first run of the day with a single in the first, and added a hit and two walks later on. He had 6 RBI in the Series, the most on either team, and all of them came on plays that either tied the game or gave his team the lead. This Series was the greatest sweep ever played, and Berkman was a huge reason for that. But his team was swept, which presumably resulted in him getting 0 votes for Series MVP even though he had not only the best championship probability added in the contest, but the highest championship probability added by any player on the losing end of a Series sweep, ever (hitter or pitcher), and by a huge margin over all the candidates but one (Tony Gwynn in '98).

2011: Unimpressive LDS for the first time in forever (3/18, albeit with a double, a homer, and 2 walks). 6/20 in the NLCS, with no extra-base hits but a couple of walks. And then came the World Series.

Game 1: 2/4 with a pair of RBI in a 3-2 win. (.064 WPA, less than I would have expected.)
Game 2: 1/4 with a couple of strikeouts. Singled in the eighth and was stranded; the Rangers came back to win in the ninth. (-.003 WPA, essentially non-participatory.)
Game 3: 2/4 with a walk and a couple of runs. (.070 WPA, although Pujols and his 3 homers got the attention, which... makes sense.)
Game 4: 2/3 with a double, .088 WPA; he was the only Cardinal who remembered to show up against Derek Holland, whose 8.1 innings of 2-hit ball (both by Berkman) took the headlines.
Game 5: Worst WPA of the Series, -.037; walked twice and scored, but also struck out 3 times, including the game-ender while batting as the tying run.
Game 6: 2-run homer in the first, turning a 1-0 deficit into a 2-1 lead. Reached on an error in the fourth and scored the tying run. Singled in the sixth and scored the tying run again. Flied out in the eighth. Walked in the ninth and scored the tying run again on Freese's triple. And with two out and his team down a run in the tenth, singled in the tying run.

4 runs scored and 3 RBI; since he had a homer, that's participation in 6 runs, and all 6 of them were either the tying or go-ahead run for the Cardinals. It adds up to .828 WPA, which is utterly ridiculous. It's more than any hitter had ever had in a Game 6 or 7 before; I believe it trailed only Gibson in World Series play overall. And yet, just two years later, it's barely remembered, because his teammate was having an even better game at the same time.

Game 7: A hit and a walk and two runs scored, including the tying run in the first, but still just -.008 WPA overall.

And that's it to date for Berkman. The raw numbers are pretty comparable to Ortiz (.295/.409/.553 for one, .317/.417/.532 for the other - can you guess which is which?), and the moments match up as well - except that Berkman had worse luck with teammates and opponents relentlessly stealing his spotlight. (In terms of unremembered exceptional postseason performance, it's hard to imagine worse luck than Berkman's, really.)

Oh, also, they're very similar in the regular season (Ortiz with a 139 OPS+ in 8249 PA, Berkman 144 in 7814; since Berkman could actually play the outfield for most of his career, including center as a young guy, it's hard to find an advantage for Ortiz there).

but the narrative..... it's all about the narrative and how Ortiz led the only team in baseball that matters on the planet to a couple of world series wins. That is why Boston Rubes want him in. Their team is the only team that matters, and the narrative for their guy is the only time in the history of the game that it matters because their non-hof-worthy player has put up half a season of post season stats exactly in line with his career numbers...but it's all about the narrative and Bawston. Most delusional fans on the planet, makes Mets and Yankee fans appear to be grounded. (even Oakland Raider fans are more coherent than Bawston fans when it comes to objective evaluation)

This point became clearer to me while reading other Ortiz threads lately. A DH contributes nothing offensively on the days he DHs, so the fact that Ortiz contributes (almost) nothing defensively would seem irrelevant. But if DH is a patchwork of guys who do play defense on other days, as it is to some extent, then the DH slot functions as a kind of reserve of dWAR that a team can circulate through its other positions. Those guys don't suddenly lose value as ballplayers and roster elements on the days that they DH. Neither does Ortiz, of course, but the problem is that he has no defensive value to begin with.

That said, Ortiz is a heck of a hitter, and he is starting to enter Hall conversations on the strength of his bat alone. The most direct comp careers, as I was saying in other threads, are Joe Medwick, Jack Clark, and Bob Johnson. But here's a comps list, leaving defense totally out of consideration, designed so that Ortiz is at the very bottom: i.e. it's a swath of guys with somewhat better hitting careers:

Delgado, too, is really close, and he's not a HOFer and never going to be. Arguments for Ortiz over Delgado, right now, depend solely on the postseason and the special thrill of Boston World Series. On the other end of the list, Edgar Martinez was a significantly better hitter, an HOMer, though unlikely to be a HOFer soon. Ortiz is not yet near the Edgar category (again, except in the euphoria of October 2013).

But it ain't over till it's over. In the next few years, God willing and I hope he does because I like him a lot, Ortiz should rack up career totals at least as good as those of Willie Stargell, also a clutch leader of men. He could get closer to Heilmann, who was no ballerina in the field. There's bad news on that list, because somebody like Giambi isn't much of a Hall candidate despite being currently somewhat better than Ortiz. But then there's Vlad, who might get quite a few votes and compares well to Ortiz on the general Awesomeness Meter. Give this argument a few years, Papiphiles, and you may have much easier headway.

31-an impressive list of big hits. Ortiz's s better. Berkman has been great in the playoffs. Ortiz was already legendary. And then 2013 happened. The Epic Grannie, the 1.948 OPS in the WS, the Cards simply giving up on trying to get him out by Game 6.

Ortiz was a central figure on 3 memorable WS winning teams. That kind of stuff matters to HOF voters, and it should. He has the best WS stats of anybody in the playoff era.

but the narrative..... it's all about the narrative and how Ortiz led the only team in baseball that matters on the planet to a couple of world series wins. That is why Boston Rubes want him in. Their team is the only team that matters, and the narrative for their guy is the only time in the history of the game that it matters because their non-hof-worthy player has put up half a season of post season stats exactly in line with his career numbers...but it's all about the narrative and Bawston. Most delusional fans on the planet, makes Mets and Yankee fans appear to be grounded. (even Oakland Raider fans are more coherent than Bawston fans when it comes to objective evaluation)

There's nothing in this post above paragraph that is an honest response to anything anybody has posted in this thread. Its a bunch of strawman crap and intentionally insulting invective.

Here's what I said:

"But much of Ortiz's case hangs on the narrative. His narrative is second to none."

And it is. Nobody in the playoff era has more huge memorable moments. If he gets in the HOF, and I agree he's borderline and he might have to get to 500 HR's first, but
much of the reason he gets in, if he does indeed gain entry, will be because of his October heroics.

WPA is a narrative stat. It captures the importance of the hits at the time they occurred. Since we're apparently building a Hall of Fame case based on narrative, a narrative stat seems entirely appropriate.

Having a huge series in the 2004 ALCS is more important, historically, than having a huge series in the 2004 NLCS. It simply is. When the Sox finally won the WS that year (crushing a 104 win STL team), it was a huge story all over the planet. Hugh Jorgan said it was news in Austrailia, for instance.

The HOF. Not the Hall of WPA in the PS.

Again, I don't know if he gets in, but if he gets in, its largely due to postseason feats for a storied franchise that had to been famously snakebit.

Having a huge series in the 2004 ALCS is more important, historically, than having a huge series in the 2004 NLCS. It simply is. When the Sox finally won the WS that year (crushing a 104 win STL team), it was a huge story all over the planet. Hugh Jorgan said it was news in Austrailia, for instance.

The HOF. Not the Hall of WPA in the PS.

Again, I don't know if he gets in, but if he gets in, its largely due to postseason feats for a storied franchise that had to been famously snakebit.

Since you're willing to admit that this is the reason for your position, we can move into "agree to disagree" territory.

Nice post, BDC. It will be very interesting to what transpires over the next few seasons. He may really put himself forward, but at his age the odds of serious decline ate higher as are the odds of debilitating injury. I look forward to seeing which way it goes.

What made the '07 Red Sox especially memorable, by WS-winning-team standards?

I agree they're the poor sisters of the trio of Ortiz Ring Teams. The Red Sox as a WS winner, because they're the Red Sox, are important. In terms of sheer numbers, they have a lot of people living and dying with each pitch*. They are an iconic team. Don't hate me for saying it, but its kinda true. Yankees, Sox, Dodgers, Cards. These are your big 4 I think.

*there's a saying: Baseball is not life or death, but the Red Sox are. I know that makes a lot of people on this board wanna throw up.

@ 34: Do you have any examples of how being a central figure on three WS winners is important to voters? Preferably examples of players elected due to that role who would not have been otherwise elected.

34: Do you have any examples of how being a central figure on three WS winners is important to voters? Preferably examples of players elected due to that role who would not have been otherwise elected.

ETA: Kirby Puckett won two. Going back further, Home Run Baker was on three title-winning teams, and got his nickname in the Series. Goose Goslin's teams won five pennants and two titles, and he was great in the Series. None of them would necessarily be guaranteed selections without the postseason.

Old-school pitchers - Herb Pennock, Chief Bender, and Waite Hoyt are all fairly borderline selections who won 3 titles each. Jesse Haines won two. I find it highly likely that the Series performance influenced at least some of these selections.

@43:Being an important player on a WS team has benefits, HOF-wise, I think. Puckett is not in without the 2 Championships, probably. Buncha Yankees: Ruffing, Lefty Gomez is certainly in the HOF partly if not largely because of his WS performance, then there's Lazzeri, Scooter, Combs. And from other teams there's Ducky Medwick, Bill Maz is not in with 1960 I'd guess, Tony Perez, Catfish Hunter, Drysdale, to name a few.

BTW the way, I was looking up some guys, and I was simply linking into the HOF list from his page, and it says this on Ted Williams' bbref. page:

@ 34: Do you have any examples of how being a central figure on three WS winners is important to voters? Preferably examples of players elected due to that role who would not have been otherwise elected.

Would Jack Morris be on the verge of election without the 3 World Series rings (especially his game 7 performance in the 2nd one)?

I'm also pretty confident Schilling and Smoltz will make the HOF and I wouldn't be confident about that at all without their postseason numbers. They'd still deserve it of course, but they really wouldn't look much different than Kevin Brown.

Innocent until proven guilty. I don't take the Piazza backne comments with a grain of salt, and neither should anyone take the backroom talk about Ortiz. He's clean until proven dirty.

First of all, this is not the criminal phase of a trial and while innocent until proven guilty is an understandable yardstick to use, I don't see the obligation to do so. (Are you against bail? Surely, on some level, that violates the IUPG benchmark.) And, as has been pointed out too many times to mention, it's the players' behavior and that of their representatives that has stripped them of the assumption of innocence.

Second, the uproar about Ortiz being "outed" was not nearly as much about his appearance on the list, but the inappropriateness of the release of what was supposed to be confidential. In discussing his drug test failure, Schilling (I know, it's Schilling,) said the only difference between Ortiz and ARod, is that no one likes ARod and everyone likes Ortiz. (Said similar about Pettitte.)

"But much of Ortiz's case hangs on the narrative. His narrative is second to none."

actually his narrative is pretty much nonsense.... second to none...seriously I don't think he really has an argument on par with Lou Brocks world series numbers... Lou posted a 1.079 ops in the 60's while stealing 14 bases... I'm sorry if you think your guy is on par with that...it's again, how delusional Red Sox fans are to think that Ortiz world series accomplishments are even remotely comparable to Brocks...that makes this whole situation hilarious.

Give me the Narrative that makes Ortiz 1. a hofer even though his numbers is clearly inferior to the standards established for a hofer, and 2. the narrative that takes that particular crappy player and makes him worthy of not just the hof, but of ignoring the five year rule and putting him in now..

I'm sorry but Ortiz is not even close to being a hof player...Lofton, Bernie Williams, Andruw Jones, Scott Rolen, Bobby Abreu, Heck even Chase Utley who's career began after Ortiz became good, are better hof choices than Ortiz... He's just not worthy... I'm sorry Boston fans, get over your obsession with putting in crappy players into the hof...you have succeeded with Rice(who is a better choice than Ortiz)...stop trying.

Again, I don't know if he gets in, but if he gets in, its largely due to postseason feats for a storied franchise that had to been famously snakebit

If he gets in, it's because you are dealing with the same dumbass writers who voted Rice into the hof, while one and done guys like Kevin Brown, Lou Whitaker and Ted Simmons.... him getting in by the vote isn't really an accomplishment more as less an admonishment of the east coast bias that supposedly doesn't exist.

gap, gap, gap, gap.
2. Cardinals
3. Dodgers
4. Giants.... Those are your big four
5. A's... and nobody with a brain could say any different.... I'm sorry delusional Red Sox fans, but your franchise is not remotely the top five in baseball history...to say different is just retarded.

after that, you may have a debate...but the clear top five are those I just listed.

it's again, how delusional Red Sox fans are to think that Ortiz world series accomplishments are even remotely comparable to Brocks

Yes, it's crazy to think a half-time corner infielder with a 1.372 OPS in three World Series victories could be compared to a corner outfielder with a 1.079 OPS in three World Series victories. It's insanity, I tells ya.

5. A's... and nobody with a brain could say any different.... I'm sorry delusional Red Sox fans, but your franchise is not remotely the top five in baseball history...to say different is just retarded.

Good lord. If there's some delusionality going on here, it's clearly contagious.

The twice-moved (and begging for a third) A's franchise, a club that's a grand total of 440 games under .500 for their existence, are not a bigger franchise than 612 games over .500, major market-residing, ESPN- and Fox-loving Red Sox, one extra WS victory and two additional pennants be damned. Only someone who's a supreme idiot or maintaining a batshit insane anti-Red Sox bias could even make that case. As I'm a gentleman, I'll let you choose which one applies to you.

Yes, and part of Yawkey's cachet, his leverage if you will in getting into that inner circle, was that he used his vast wealth to make sure that baseball survived dire times in the New England niche. When Brooklyn (much more successful economically than Yawkey's Red Sox in the '50s) and the Giants and Braves and the Browns moved as times were perceived as hard, he bit the bullet and weather those times in place. I think it's understandable that the institution that is MLB appreciated that. The Red Sox legacy isn't just that they were winners at certain times, especially lately, but that they endured and rose from the depths, from Phoenix-like ashes, to prevail. It's not just unbroken success that is the stuff of myths and folklore.

I thought that the best contribution Yawkey made to baseball was helping to keep the A's, Browns, and Senators afloat by buying their players, but I had not considered him staying in Boston as a plus. I figured that once the Braves left, it was easy to keep the Red Sox in Boston. I'll ponder that. thanks, Morty.

I somehow doubt that MLB would abandon cities like St. Louis, Philadelphia, Boston, and New York. In shared cities someone was going to move and once they were down to one team there was little reason for the last team to leave as well.

The interesting story quite possibly is how Chicago kept both of its original teams. I can understand why the Cubs didn't leave. Wrigley was making money on the Cubs and he kept the team in honor of his dad but the White Sox were not owned by deep pocketed owners. If the Comiskey family hadn't owned the team during the 40's and 50's they probably move. But it is somewhat surprising that the Sox never moved after that. I guess Milwaukee getting a team kept them from moving.

I'm sorry but Ortiz is not even close to being a hof player...Lofton, Bernie Williams, Andruw Jones, Scott Rolen, Bobby Abreu, Heck even Chase Utley who's career began after Ortiz became good, are better hof choices than Ortiz... He's just not worthy

When I read this my visceral response was you're completely, 100% off-base! After thinking about it, I really don't think Bobby Abreau is a better player than David Ortiz.

Utley would certainly be a slam-dunk over Ortiz if not for the injuries. Don't like how Jones ended up but at one point he was certain the elite CF. At least Bernie played OK defense for the first portion of his career, was a solid offensive player other than the Marv Throneberry baserunning and has good post-season pedigree. Lofton is and always will be Tim Raines-like grossly under-rated. Rolen, if defense is actually important, has to run circles around Ortiz.

So with all that being said, and not feeling like any of your comparative players are HoF worthy (other than maybe Lofton one day), why do I feel like Ortiz is a tough call?

The fact is those teams went to greener pastures, and Yawkey stayed and lost money for a long time while keeping that hallowed franchise, the only one in the area, viable. Sure, someone would have given the Boston area a go. That doesn't nearly mean that would have been an improvement on Yawkey, and they likely, from a financial standpoint, they likely would have been worse.

My list of franchises was intended to rank ballclubs in current terms of national prominence. Current.

The A's? C'mon.

I thought that was obvious, since you included the Cubs. And I can see arguments for CFB's Top 4 all being ahead of the Sox in a Big 4 (though I'd say it's probably more accurate to say 2-5 are all fighting it out somewhere well below the Yankees on that scorecard, with another step down to No. 6).

But there isn't a single ranking system that would place the A's ahead of the Red Sox other than a Count the Rings methodology, in which case the Sox top the Dodgers and Giants.

My list of franchises was intended to rank ballclubs in current terms of national prominence. Current.

You were describing the Sox as "storied" and "iconic," which suggests a historic viewpoint rather than a current one; that may not be what you intended, but that was how I read it, and I assume how CFB read it as well.

It is abundantly clear that cfb's views on the Red Sox, their fans and their players has nothing to do with the Cardinals having lost the WS twice to Boston since '04. I mean, he said it didn't!

Yes it is true. I don't see why my team losing to your team in the World Series would remotely color my perception of Ortiz as a hofer. Any neutral observer would look at Ortiz career and conclude he's clearly not deserving. Even with a narrative, there is just simply not enough there to put him over the line. This is a full time player who isn't as valuable as even a borderline catcher for the hof....there is literally no reason to campaign for him, other than the emotional connection a Red Sox fan has to him. He's inferior to Jim Rice, which is arguably the worst hof selection made by the bbwaa in at least 20 years (not counting relief pitchers that is....neither Sutter or Gossage belong either....but that is a different screw up)

My list of franchises was intended to rank ballclubs in current terms of national prominence. Current.

Wait, looking at this again - the Dodgers are on the list of the most prominent teams right now, despite not having won a pennant in 25 years?

I'm not saying you're incorrect in your assessment, but I would say that using that assessment of prominence as any kind of factor in HoF voting is problematic at best, if it's effectively impossible for a small-market team to gain it or for a big market team to lose it.

Any neutral observer would look at Ortiz career and conclude he's clearly not deserving. Even with a narrative, there is just simply not enough there to put him over the line.

Actually, there are quite a few neutral observers* who have said just that (Phils fan JRJV at the start of the thread, Yanks fan Srul in a previous one). Personally, I don't think he's there yet, but a couple of more good years and I can see a case for the full Papi package. But I'm of the belief that the Hall of Fame isn't synonymous with the Hall of Merit (as many of Eric J's examples nicely show), so whether he ultimately exceeds Edgar in total value is not a requirement for whether he's a reasonable Hall of Fame candidate.

* You, as your many posts on the Sox over the years have illustrated, are not a neutral observer. What the origin of your bias is does not interest me, but nonsense like 62 indicate you maintain a big old blind spot when it comes to the Carmine Hose.

Personally, I don't think he's there yet, but a couple of more good years and I can see a case for the full Papi package.

I absolutely agree there. He's on trajectory to be hofer. I don't think he has enough of a peak to go in, but combine that with a full career and he absolutely goes in... 3 more years with normal decline and I'll possibly support him. As I mentioned before, I'm more than willing to consider his post season success the equivalent of a full all-star level season added to his resume.

cardsfanboy:Ortiz::RDP:Ichiro

Not sure about that. I can see some of the similarities, and for the most part on this particular thread I'm being a tad over the top on my opinion on this, just because of the ridiculous comment about "He should go in right now." than anything else. Unlike Ray, I think Ortiz is on the right track, I do consider narrative to an extent in the discussion. I absolutely believe post season success can be used to bolster a candidates resume. Plus I like the guy (I have a fondness for fat guys playing baseball....Fielder, Ortiz, Giambi, Stairs, Sabathia even Ponson...add in his positive attitude and there is really nothing to dislike about Ortiz....unless you are in the 'he did roids' camp.) I would have no problem if he went in....would be a much better ambassador for the game than a Jim Rice or Goose Gossage, and arguably equally as deserving as either of them.

I think the NOW in Post has been misinterpreted. It didn't mean a Roberto Clemente-like waive the voting period, but simply that Ortiz doesn't need to add anything else to his resume to be a hall of famer, in JRJV's estimation. I don't agree with that, but it it's not so outlandish to deem him a troll or some of the other responses his comment produced.

I think the NOW in Post has been misinterpreted. It didn't mean a Roberto Clemente-like waive the voting period, but simply that Ortiz doesn't need to add anything else to his resume to be a hall of famer, in JRJV's estimation. I don't agree with that, but it it's not so outlandish to deem him a troll or some of the other responses his comment produced.

If I misinterpreted it, then I apologize. I still dislike the "historical importance" comment that he included as I don't see anything historically important about Papi's career. I can see narrative importance, but to me that is a completely different thing. When I see historical importance I'm thinking Jackie Robinson or Babe Ruth or even Curt Flood and a few other guys who's career changed the game in one way or another. I'm not thinking of a guy who had a few great post season series.

I look forward to these articles cropping up regularly over the next 2-3 years as Ortiz finishes up his career. I'm wondering if the goalposts get moved by the Papi opponents if he has a Martinez like run to retirement.

I think Papi should be in the HoF, I concede that I might be the one being unreasonable to others who think he doesn't have the career value to merit it. But to say he's not one of the more iconic players in 21st century baseball, or that the Sox aren't a "storied and iconic" franchise, is just silly. You can argue that he still doesn't deserve enshrinement in the HoF, but you don't have to ignore his very real status as a major star for a major team to get there.

Just curious...which franchises would you consider to not be "storied and iconic."..... I guess you have the last few expansion teams of course....but what do the Red Sox bring to the table that the Pirates don't? Or the Reds or Tiger or Braves or Cardinals or Dodgers or Giants or A's or Cubs etc? Is there really any significant difference between the original clubs that makes one more noteworthy than the others?(with the exception of the Yankees...I'll concede that.)

And it is. Nobody in the playoff era has more huge memorable moments. If he gets in the HOF, and I agree he's borderline and he might have to get to 500 HR's first, but
much of the reason he gets in, if he does indeed gain entry, will be because of his October heroics.

Its the Hall of Fame. Not the Hall of WAR.

Here's what I f*cking posted. Pretty delusional I guess.

The Red Sox as a WS winner, because they're the Red Sox, are important. In terms of sheer numbers, they have a lot of people living and dying with each pitch*. They are an iconic team. Don't hate me for saying it, but its kinda true. Yankees, Sox, Dodgers, Cards. These are your big 4 I think.

My list of franchises was intended to rank ballclubs in current terms of national prominence. Current.

I don't see that as being true. I think you are backstepping. Current prominence that doesn't include the Braves is just silly.

Notice, people, that I said "have". As in right now. Present tense. Current. Words matter.

Murray Chass thinks Blyleven isn't and that Jack Morris is... Joe Morgan would put in Concepcion in....I'm not sure what the purpose of an "appeal to authority" has to do with a debate.

Notice, people, that I said "have". As in right now. Present tense. Current. Words matter.

So a teams importance/iconic status is based upon just this one season, and whether they currently have a lot of people watching their games? I still don't see what you are trying to get at. The simple fact is that with TBS the Braves have created a pretty far reaching fan base, I travel the country for a living and I run into plenty of Braves fans outside of their home area.

Murray Chass thinks Blyleven isn't and that Jack Morris is... Joe Morgan would put in Concepcion in....I'm not sure what the purpose of an "appeal to authority" has to do with a debate.

It was a joke. A dig.

I still don't see what you are trying to get at.

Yeah you do. You're the one backstepping in actuality, and you're doing it because you didn't read my post carefully enough, and criticized it based on your own faulty interpretation of something that I have demostrated was sufficiently clear.

You came right out of he box with your typical anti-Sox bluster, and have ended up, backstepping, at pretty much the same point I was at from square one:

If he gets in the HOF, and I agree he's borderline and he might have to get to 500 HR's first, but much of the reason he gets in, if he does indeed gain entry, it will be because of his October heroics.

He's on trajectory to be hofer. I don't think he has enough of a peak to go in, but combine that with a full career and he absolutely goes in... 3 more years with normal decline and I'll possibly support him. As I mentioned before, I'm more than willing to consider his post season success the equivalent of a full all-star level season added to his resume.

I've all along agreed he's on the path to the hof. Again it's been about the right now comment that set me off. I just don't see him in right now.

You came right out of he box with your typical anti-Sox bluster, and have ended up, backstepping, at pretty much the same point I was at from square one:

Really? My original comment didn't mention the Red Sox, didn't mention anything other than call Ortiz a borderline hovg, it was your post in post 11 that was an attack that inspired me to go overboard. There was your anti-Cardinal bias showing it's head so I went ### for tat. Again I don't see anything historically significant about being a guy who put up a few great post season series for a particular franchise. Nothing that moves him into "hofer if hit by a truck territory"....and I stand behind that claim. He's not. He's basically Jim Rice right now. If he retired today, he wouldn't be deserving of the hof(not saying he wouldn't get in, just saying he wouldn't be deserving imho.)

I do not see one instance where you can say I back peddled. If you can find one on this thread I will be willing to acknowledge it. Just like I apologized for mis-interpreting the original comment of Now in thinking he meant do the Clemente thing, and instead he was talking about "he's done enough that he is deserving of enshrinement if he retired today."

it was your post in post 11 that was an attack that inspired me to go overboard

???

BTW, I like the Cardinals. I like all teams but the NYY's. But I especially admire the Cardinals and their fans, and have said so more than once. For one thing, they are the only team to have faced the NYY's more than once in the WS and have a winning record against them.